I
ichabode
Guest
Take just one example. Charles Manson he still wields evil from prison, and like he has said if he wanted to get someone to kill for him; that could be arranged.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pope Francis tells Congress ‘every life is sacred,’ says the death penalty should be abolished
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I really don’t care to engage in any long discussion about doctrine and the nature of its possible development, not when the Dogmatic Constitution ‘Dei Verbum’ is clear enough. To do so is clericalism and not spirituality. I know what the Fifth Commandant says and don’t require much of an explanation:I have already acknowledged that doctrine can develop, but there is a limit to what constitutes “reformulation” and surely that limit excludes repudiation. It is not enough to say change is possible. I think the debate hinges on the nature of the teaching in 2267. Furthermore, I reject the assertion in the article that the story of Cain represents the basis of this new teaching. This assertion seems doubtful:the question of how to punish heinous crime is answered with a decisive rejection of death because God chose not to slay Cain
There are other reasonable interpretations of that story, and given that the church throughout her history has not referenced it in her comments on capital punishment, it seems a bit late to give it that interpretation now. This is especially true in light of the fact that, while this story is in the fourth chapter of Genesis, later in that book (chapter 9) God explicitly calls for the execution of murderers. Are we to believe that God can’t make up his mind on this topic?
The author goes on to say that JPII claimed:The state is obliged to punish an offender against public order* and safety, but not to do so beyond limits set by the needs of society **and standards of human dignity.
*Determining the needs of society is clearly a prudential judgment, but what of the implication that executions go “beyond…standards of human dignity”? Can this be true? If the death penalty really exceeds that standard then how can it be justified under any circumstances? We know, however, that the Catechism itself justifies its use in certain limited cases, which can only mean that even this new formulation does not judge its use to exceed human dignity.
Regarding 2267 the author asserts:
First, paragraph 2267 expressly states that it represents the “traditional teaching of the Church.”** It does not** claim to be a variation of the traditional teaching, or a departure from it, but the** Tradition** itself.
It is true that this is what is claimed, but the claim itself is inaccurate. The statement of what constitutes the Traditional teaching is different even between the first and second editions of the Catechism. The second edition contains the caveat that capital punishment is acceptable “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That restriction is not found anywhere in previous church documents. It does not represent the Traditional teaching. The first edition had correct:*The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. *(2266)
The defense of life restriction is not part of the Traditional teaching.
Ender
‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’
E
eamonnroma
Guest
There should not be all of these discussions quoting canon law and so on. Our supreme pastor, the Pope,along with other recent popes, has stated that now capital punishment is not acceptable. Canon law is not dogma. The church has and does change is teachings, particularly on social matters.
Times have changed.
Times have changed.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not consider Charles Manson a reliable source. I note he has not killed anyone from prison.Take just one example. Charles Manson he still wields evil from prison, and like he has said if he wanted to get someone to kill for him; that could be arranged.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
Correct. And he never did, actually.I do not consider Charles Manson a reliable source. I note he has not killed anyone from prison.
E
Ender
Guest
You know what it says but not necessarily what it means. It does require an explanation, and it is one the church has given repeatedly.*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of St. Pius X)I know what the Fifth Commandant says and don’t require much of an explanation:
‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’
*“Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill.” *(Augustine)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
What got me started discussing this topic, even before I knew much of anything about it, were some of the arguments used to oppose capital punishment. I may not have been familiar with what the church taught, but I could recognize explanations that were suspect…such as this one.There should not be all of these discussions quoting canon law and so on. Our supreme pastor, the Pope,along with other recent popes, has stated that now capital punishment is not acceptable. Canon law is not dogma. The church has and does change is teachings, particularly on social matters.
Times have changed.
Popes do not decide what should or should not be doctrine. Their job, along with the Magisterium, is to discern the truth. It is God’s will, not the will of the pope that matters, and while the times may have changed the truth has not. Morality does not change with time or place, and it greatly weakens the force of all doctrines to suggest that what was taught yesterday may be reversed today. Why would any doctrine be taken seriously if it is not believed to be fixed and correct?
Ender
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
Manson is dead.Take just one example. Charles Manson he still wields evil from prison, and like he has said if he wanted to get someone to kill for him; that could be arranged.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I don’t necessary know what the four words “Thou Shalt Not Kill” mean? An explanation is required, and the explanation of these four words is provided by the Church?You know what it says but not necessarily what it means. It does require an explanation, and it is one the church has given repeatedly.*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of St. Pius X)
*“Those who, endowed with the character of public authority, punish criminals by death, do not violate that commandment which says, Thou shalt not kill.” *(Augustine)
Ender
I am well aware of what both Augustine and Aquinas said concerning the concept of Just War. However, what I believe is that before Christ it is neither doctrine nor concepts that will be called forth for judgment but rather each and every person. And they will stand alone in this judgment of their souls, with each and every one responsible for their own salvation. I believe it is a risky business to rely solely on doctrine and why the Catholic teaching of primacy of conscience is important.
Rather than view this in the abstract, I look at the issue existentially. Would I push the button to inject lethal drugs into the veins of a prisoner strapped to a gurney in the execution chamber of a prison when the prisoner is absolutely not in the moment a danger to anyone? I would not. So I ask, “Would you?”
E
Ender
Guest
*From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist. … At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. *(Fr. John Hardon)I don’t necessary know what the four words “Thou Shalt Not Kill” mean? An explanation is required, and the explanation of these four words is provided by the Church?
Your interpretation is the one the church rejected.
If by primacy of conscience you mean that whatever your conscience tells you is right becomes acceptable, then you are mistaken. The church has no such teaching. Quite the contrary: we may be held accountable for errors our conscience makes.1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.I believe it is a risky business to rely solely on doctrine and why the Catholic teaching of primacy of conscience is important.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
Our conscience is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that relieves us of responsibility for our sinful acts.
There are any number of jobs I would not like to perform personally, but that has no bearing on whether or not those jobs ought to be performed.Rather than view this in the abstract, I look at the issue existentially. Would I push the button to inject lethal drugs into the veins of a prisoner strapped to a gurney in the execution chamber of a prison when the prisoner is absolutely not in the moment a danger to anyone? I would not. So I ask, “Would you?”
Ender
T
Thomas_White
Guest
You have avoided answering the question of whether you yourself would execute a prisoner, and it is very important that you first answer the question. But tell me how listening to my conscience and not pushing the button to execute a prisoner would mean I am “culpable of the evil” I commit? Is it the teaching of the Catholic Church that it would be evil on my part not to execute the person?*From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist. … At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. *(Fr. John Hardon)
Your interpretation is the one the church rejected.
If by primacy of conscience you mean that whatever your conscience tells you is right becomes acceptable, then you are mistaken. The church has no such teaching. Quite the contrary: we may be held accountable for errors our conscience makes.1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
Our conscience is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that relieves us of responsibility for our sinful acts.
There are any number of jobs I would not like to perform personally, but that has no bearing on whether or not those jobs ought to be performed.
Ender
I am hardly persuaded by the circular logic that the primacy of conscience must conform to doctrine. That is not a proper understanding. In any event, the topic is capital punishment and not the concept of Just War.
E
Ender
Guest
Unless I was actually faced with that possibility I cannot know what I would do. Since, however, I support the use of capital punishment, I think I probably could execute the sentence. I will say again, however: what I would personally do has nothing to do with whether the action is just.You have avoided answering the question of whether you yourself would execute a prisoner, and it is very important that you first answer the question.
No, there is clearly no sin involved in not executing someone. I was referring to the rejection of church doctrine in favor of the inclination of one’s conscience.But tell me how listening to my conscience and not pushing the button to execute a prisoner would mean I am “culpable of the evil” I commit? Is it the teaching of the Catholic Church that it would be evil on my part not to execute the person?
There is no such thing as the primacy of conscience; that is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches.1792 *Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these **can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.I am hardly persuaded by the circular logic that the primacy of conscience must conform to doctrine. That is not a proper understanding.
***Ender
I
ichabode
Guest
Okay, well that is good news. Another example of why we would need capital punishment is that you never know when a liberal will be governor or president. They have time and time again made sure that those who have been convicted of killing and conspiracy to kill others along with their collaborators are released and set free back into society. A couple more people.Manson is dead.
Lynne Stewart she is the one that aided Omar Abdel-Rahman to resist peace and start killing again in Egypt.
Willie Horton, life without the possibility of parole is released on prison furlough program by Democrat Governor Dukakis. While on his furlough he is the one that raped a woman repeatedly while tying up her husband and making him watch it.
Not sure if Willie is still alive or not. I hope not or else he may be released, yet again.
At least two months ago Lynne Stewart is still alive and well and doing more activist work probably being a liaison as usual for mob bosses and Muslim extremist.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, at the Council of Trent, in regards to the 5th CommandmentI don’t necessary know what the four words “Thou Shalt Not Kill” mean? An explanation is required, and the explanation of these four words is provided by the Church?
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life.
Seems clear enough, does it not?Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
S
saggal
Guest
Actually, Manson isn’t dead.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That doesn’t give the fullness of teaching as understood in the middle ages. Added to this Aquinas, answering to the objection that it might be unlawful to kill sinners as to uproot the cockle as per Matt 13, says…Yes, at the Council of Trent, in regards to the 5th Commandment
Seems clear enough, does it not?
“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.”
The Church in her wisdom views the culture of today so out of touch with divine meaning and principles that the death penalty is serving more harm than good. For a Catholic, when the tide of culture around the world is naturally rejecting the death penalty and the Church affirms that this is a movement for good… there should be little doubt that we support its abolition.
B
Brendan
Guest
I understand and accept Aquinas in that it might not be PRUDENTIAL to use capital punishment, and I am in agreement with the bishops that, at this time, it is not PRUDENTIAL to do so.That doesn’t give the fullness of teaching as understood in the middle ages. Added to this Aquinas, answering to the objection that it might be unlawful to kill sinners as to uproot the cockle as per Matt 13, says…
We can see that in the last part of your quote
.When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death
That is the moral theology behind the Church’s requirement that the guilt of the accused be proved. If that is the case, the guilty person my justly be put to death.
That is part of the prudential nature of any ban. But the morality of it is not questionable.
I will challenge Thomas, or others, who might claim that it is a violation of the 5th Commandment to do so. I am heartened that he looked to the Church for clarification on the 5th Commandment, and hopeful that he will accept what Trent has declared to be so.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I don’t believe what a person would personally do can be separated from whether the action is just. I have said I would not execute the prisoner, and you have said you probably could do it. In my opinion, neither of these positions, so long as it does not involve some act, would be a violation of the Fifth Commandment.Unless I was actually faced with that possibility I cannot know what I would do. Since, however, I support the use of capital punishment, I think I probably could execute the sentence. I will say again, however: what I would personally do has nothing to do with whether the action is just.
Pope Benedict XVI has said that a person must follow the certain dictates of his or her conscience even if it is contrary to Church teaching.No, there is clearly no sin involved in not executing someone. I was referring to the rejection of church doctrine in favor of the inclination of one’s conscience.
A person without a conscience is defined as a sociopath. Of course there is primacy of conscience, and it is a basic Catholic teaching. Paragraph 1790 of the CCC states the following:There is no such thing as the primacy of conscience; that is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches.1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these **can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
**
“A human being must always obey the certain judgements of conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it, he would condemn himself.”
B
Brendan
Guest
Both of you are correct. Conscience is not, nor can it be, primary. God is.IA person without a conscience is defined as a sociopath. Of course there is primacy of conscience, and it is a basic Catholic teaching. Paragraph 1790 of the CCC states the following:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgements of conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it, he would condemn himself.”
And one is obligated to obey the certain judgement ( note the qualifier). Certitude in moral matters is only possible when the conscience is in agreement with the moral declarations of the Church.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
As I noted, Pope Benedict XVI would disagree that conscience must be in agreement with Church teaching.Both of you are correct. Conscience is not, nor can it be, primary. God is.
And one is obligated to obey the certain judgement ( note the qualifier). Certitude in moral matters is only possible when the conscience is in agreement with the moral declarations of the Church.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.